Celebrate the courage of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal in the fight for freedom. He has shown tremendous courage in signing the Louisiana Science Education Bill, an important blow for academic freedom.

"Our freedom to think and consider more than one option is part of what has given America her competitive edge in the international marketplace of ideas, said biology scientist Caroline Crocker to the Louisiana House Committee on Education. "The current denial of academic freedom rights for those who are judged politically incorrect may put this in jeopardy.

Crocker was testifying on the bill allowing supplemental materials into Louisiana public school science classrooms about evolution, cloning, global warming and other debatable topics. The legislature went on to unanimously (35-0) pass the bill. Now it has become law because of Gov. Jindals courage.

One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes critical thinking and objective discussion in the classroom would please everyone -- it did the bipartisan group of legislators in Louisiana -- but such is not the case. The New York Times felt threatened by the legislation, calling it retrograde, naming its editorial on the topic, Louisianas Latest Assault on Darwin. They were attempting to pressure Gov. Jindal to not sign the law, using a number of tactics including implicit ridicule, subtle belittling insults and untruths.

The law is straightforward and clearly restricts any intent to promote a religious doctrine. There is no mention of either intelligent design or creationism. Darwinism is not banned and teachers are required to teach students from standard textbooks. But the Times calls the legislation a Trojan horse because the state board of education must, upon request of local school districts, help foster an environment of critical thinking and open discussion on controversial scientific subjects. This allows teachers to use supplemental materials to analyze evolution and show views other than Darwins theory. It allows evolution to be criticized, and the law protects the rights of teachers and students to talk freely about a wide range of ideas without fear of reprisal.

The Times fear is that objective discussion would have the pernicious effect of implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not. They called any school district foolish if they head down this path.

Evolutionists use a variety of methods to silence alternate viewpoints. They say people are trying to inject religious views into science courses. Besides calling it a retrograde step, the Times used implicit ridicule of Governor Jindal, saying, As a biology major at Brown University, Mr. Jindal must know that evolution is the unchallenged central organizing principle for modern biology.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwins shared atheistic beliefs in this way: Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwins views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thats the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

Academic free speech rights for Louisianas public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindals signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.

Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University explained his and Darwins shared atheistic beliefs in this way: Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwins views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thats the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

Scientist Casey Luskin, a scholar with the Discovery Institute said, "We would like to see evolution taught in an unbiased fashion and also want students to learn how to think like scientists and to weigh the evidence for and against."

Academic free speech rights for Louisianas public school students and teachers are now guaranteed because of Gov. Bobby Jindals signature. Trying to strike a modicum of balance to the scientific discussion in classrooms and allow students to hear more than one view, Gov. Jindal acted wisely.

Other states are considering similar legislation. Students deserve academic free speech rights to hear alternate views, ask critical questions and debate controversial topics. This freedom will in turn strengthen our country.

Would the Brown's suggest opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth? How about those who say the earth is hollow, or that man has never orbited the earth or set foot on the moon, or that Pi is actually 3.0 and not 3.14? If they're standing for academic freedom rather than science then shouldn't they be supporting those theories in the classroom as well?

Your post truly is a Non-Sequitur, as all of those theories have been proven false. There is no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs. So the debate must go on in order to be true to the scientific process.

5
posted on 07/05/2008 5:38:11 AM PDT
by P8riot
(I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)

“opening up Geology to those who say the earth is flat? Or Astronomy to those who say the Sun revolves around the Earth? How about those who say the earth is hollow, or that man has never orbited the earth or set foot on the moon, or that Pi is actually 3.0 and not 3.14?”

Your post truly is a Non-Sequitur, as all of those theories have been proven false. There is no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs. So the debate must go on in order to be true to the scientific process.

If that is truly your position then it's you engaging in the non-sequitur and not I. There is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution, as tens of thousands of scientists have shown over the past 150 years. Your wild, and totally unsubstantiated, claim that there is 'no absolute scientific proof that evolution occurs' to the contrary notwithstanding.

But say for the sake of arguement that your claim is even partially true, then what? What absolute scientific evidence do you have of an intelligent designer? Or would you have us believe that if evolution is false then ID is true by default?

There will be no academic freedom until we can teach what I think is the truth about creation:

Before time began there was no heaven, no earth and no space between. A vast dark ocean washed upon the shores of nothingness and licked the edges of night. A giant cobra floated on the waters. Asleep within its endless coils lay the Lord Vishnu. He was watched over by the mighty serpent. Everything was so peaceful and silent that Vishnu slept undisturbed by dreams or motion.

From the depths a humming sound began to tremble, Om. It grew and spread, filling the emptiness and throbbing with energy. The night had ended. Vishnu awoke. As the dawn began to break, from Vishnu’s navel grew a magnificent lotus flower. In the middle of the blossom sat Vishnu’s servant, Brahma. He awaited the Lord’s command.

Vishnu spoke to his servant: ‘It is time to begin.’ Brahma bowed. Vishnu commanded: ‘Create the world.’

A wind swept up the waters. Vishnu and the serpent vanished. Brahma remained in the lotus flower, floating and tossing on the sea. He lifted up his arms and calmed the wind and the ocean. Then Brahma split the lotus flower into three. He stretched one part into the heavens. He made another part into the earth. With the third part of the flower he created the skies.

The earth was bare. Brahma set to work. He created grass, flowers, trees and plants of all kinds. To these he gave feeling. Next he created the animals and the insects to live on the land. He made birds to fly in the air and many fish to swim in the sea. To all these creatures, he gave the senses of touch and smell. He gave them power to see, hear and move.

The world was soon bristling with life and the air was filled with the sounds of Brahma’s creation.

There was nothing in the beginning but seemingly almost endless chasm called the Ginnungagap. Ginnungagap was a void like the Greek Chaos. Ginnungagap was bordered by Niflheim, which is the place of darkness and ice, far to the north; and Muspelheim, a place of fire, far to the south. Out of this chaos the first being came into existence from the drop of water when ice from Niflheim and fire from Muspelheim met.

This first being was Ymir, a primeval giant. The frost-giants called him Aurgelmir, but everyone else called him Ymir. Ymir became father of a race of frost-giants.

Ymir was the father of six-headed son that was nourished by a cosmic cow called Audumla. Audumla fed herself by licking the salty rime-stone, until that stone was licked into a shape of man. This stone-man was named Buri and he was the first primeval god. Buri was the father of Bor.

Bor married the giantess Bestla, the daughter of the frost-giant Boltha. And they became the parents of the first Aesir gods Odin, Vili (Hoenir) and Ve.

Ymir grew so large and so evil that the three gods killed Ymir. The blood that flowed from Ymir’s wound was so great that almost all the frost giants drowned in the torrent. Only the frost giants Bergelmer and his wife escape the flood in a chest, arriving on the mountain of Jötunheim (Jotunheim), which became the home of the giants.

Yggdrasill and the Nine World

Odin and his brothers then used Ymir’s body to create the universe. This universe comprises of nine worlds. They placed the body over the void called Ginnungagap.

They used his flesh for creating the earth and his blood for the sea. His skull, held up by four dwarves (Nordri, Sudri, Austri, and Vestri), was used to create the heaven. Then using sparks from Muspelheim, the gods created the sun, moon and stars. While Ymir’s eyebrows were used to create a place where the human race could live in; a place called Midgard (Middle Earth).

A great ash tree called Yggdrasill (”World Tree”) supported the universe, with roots that connects the nine worlds together. One root of Yggdrasill extends to Muspelheim (”world of fire”), while another root to Niflheim (the “world of cold” or “of ice”). Niflheim was sometimes confused with Niflhel; Niflhel being known by another name  Hel, was the world of the dead. Hel was sometimes used interchangeably with Niflhel by many writers, as the world of the dead.

The name, Yggdrasill, means “Steed of Ygg”. Ygg is another for Odin, which means, “Terrible One”. Therefore, the great tree means in English, “Steed of the Terrible One”. Odin’s horse is named Sleipnir, but I found no connection between the tree and Sleipnir.

While one root was connected to Asgard (home of the Aesir), another root to Vanaheim (home of the Vanir). The frost giants lived Jötunheim (Jotunheim). Midgard was the world for human. Alfheim was home of the light elves (ljósálfar). There was also the underground world for the black elves (svartálfar), called Svartalfheim. The dwarves inhabited the world of Nidavellir.

Aztec Story of Creation
Quetzalcoatl, the light one, and Tezcatlipoca, the dark one, looked down from their place in the sky and saw only water below. A gigantic goddess floated upon the waters, eating everything with her many mouths.

The two gods saw that whatever they created was eaten by this monster. They knew they must stop her, so they transformed themselves into two huge serpents and descended into the water. One of them grabbed the goddess by the arms while the other grabbed her around the legs, and before she could resist they pulled until she broke apart.

Her head and shoulders became the earth and the lower part of her body the sky.

The other gods were angry at what the two had done and decided, as compensation for her dismemberment, to allow her to provide the necessities for people to survive; so from her hair they created trees, grass, and flowers; caves, fountains, and wells from her eyes; rivers from her mouth; hills and valleys from her nose; and mountains from her shoulders.

Still the goddess was often unhappy and the people could hear her crying in the night.

They knew she wept because of her thirst for human blood, and that she would not provide food from the soil until she drank.

So the gift of human hearts is given her.

She who provides sustenance for human lives demands human lives for her own sustenance. So it has always been; so it will ever be.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell University: There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal -- directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. Thats the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

Dr. William Provine of Cornell U, for all his atheism, in his mechanistic perspective and his absolute certainty, sounds positively medieval.

Nope. A church, like any incorporated entity, does not “enjoy” anything. It the people who make up the church who enjoy those benefits. Since they already pay taxes, the church is not beholden to the state.

Nope. A church, like any incorporated entity, does not enjoy anything. It the people who make up the church who enjoy those benefits. Since they already pay taxes, the church is not beholden to the state

But churches are a corporate entity just like any corporation. It has financial assets and owns property. These assets can appreciate over time and belong to the corporate entity, not the members individually. These assets are not taxed but they receive police protection, they impact our traffic and harm our roads. Why should tax payers who are not religious have to pay the churches' share?

Ironically, Darwins evolutionary theory is based is atheistic naturalism, a religious belief.

My impression of the evolutionist approach is that it includes a fervent desire to ignore, and if ignorance doesnt work, to suppress and ridicule, any and all inquiry into an examination of the circumstances described by the comment quoted above.

Darwinism is a religion, but this fact cannot be adequately discussed because Darwinists know it would hurt their credibility.

35
posted on 07/05/2008 7:03:42 AM PDT
by reasonisfaith
(Liberalism is service to the self disguised as service to others.)

Soliton: Getting back to the subject of this thread--You believe that churches should be required to teach what the state dictates to them. Is this correct? Yes, or no, please.

If so, then there is no value in the diversity of our educational backgrounds, is there? We're all supposed to be robots, fed information the state wants us to have. No debate allowed on subjects that the state has deemed true.

The NYTimes would have served better in times past defending the Roman Empire, the Nazi socialist, and as a corrupt mouthpiece for the former USSR. The times never did like alternative and diverse opinions.

I’m sick of these moronic discussions. People have some nerve. The argument always boils down to:

“The very people who demand undeniable proof from “evolutionists” when faced with a variety of evidence supporting the theory but do not hold themselves to the same standard. Matter of fact, they think their argument is the strongest even though there is zero science to support it.

It must be nice to engage in an argument where your opponent is the only one bound by any burden of proof.

“Academic Freedom” is nothing more that people on the losing side of a debate running to Uncle Sugar and calling foul, like good liberals.

Academic Freedom is nothing more that people on the losing side of a scientific debate running to Uncle Sugar and calling foul, like good liberals. Think "Global Warming". Those guys have piles more evidence to support their notion than young earth creationists.

I applaud the Governor for his stand to allow all to be taught, as free people in a free nation.
When I a freshman took a course in Geology in the fall of 1953, I was astonded that the order of evolution was in harmony with the Bible’s order of creation, at the time I thought this was reasonable.
About 7 years later (1960) In my research, I read “Enspiration vs Evolution” by Dr. W. B. Riley, (copywrite 1923). He pointed out that in Darwin’s Theory it is stated over several hundred times, “we may well assume.” In the Holy Scriptures it is stated over and over, “thus saith the Lord.” (Shall we live on assumptions, or by every word of God?)
Dr. Riley also taught the results of teaching evolution as a fact, and the results of teaching creation. He said, those that are taught evolution, in lieu of creation, would turn to Athesism, Communism,and Anarcy. And that has, and is happening.
God’s word, and His creation have lasted thousands of years,
and our children (as well as adults) are taught “In the beginning God” and the the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and he became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)
Yes, “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” (Psalm 33:6)
A blessed result of teaching creation (God’s word) is given in Proverbs 16:6, “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by the fear of the LORD men depart from evil.”

41
posted on 07/05/2008 7:29:15 AM PDT
by LetMarch
(If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward--Anonymous))

No. Wrong. What students really deserve is a good and classical education and not a blank license for teachers to teach and promote every subtle or not so subtle indoctrination of every alternate viewpoint or a forum to promote the personal beliefs of the teacher, whether the beliefs of the teacher are religious or political; founded in a fundamentalist religious belief of any kind or in Marxism or in radical feminism or radical environmentalism, or that of every wako conspiracy theory. We have too much of that sort of BS being taught in classrooms as it is now and it has to stop.

Lets put the Evolution argument aside for a moment and think about the chaos this sort of lets hear and give equal time and equal credence to every alternate viewpoint would bring.

So you have one kid in the classroom whose parents are young Earth creationists. So a science teacher has to give this belief, one with no basis in science, equal time and equal credence in any lesson plan about astronomy or geology? A number of you would be OK with this, but would any of you be equally comfortable allowing a teacher in a health or home economics class on nutrition promoting and giving equal time and credence to veganism and the teachers personal Wicaan belief system?

Should a science teacher, teaching about the NASA space program and our landing on the Moon have to give equal time and equal credence to conspiracy theories that it was all just staged on a Hollywood movie set?

I think its good to allow students to ask critical questions with the emphasis on critical and not silly, but to mandate that a teacher has to address and give equal time and credence to every challenge to every fact, whether historical or scientific, it just asking for even more erosion of our educational system.

What about the so called science teacher who was teaching an alternate view of evolution from a fundamentalist website that had no basis in science and thought that burning Christian Crosses in students arms was a good way to teach about electricity? A lot of people defended this guy but what if the teacher was a Wiccan and burned pentagrams on the arms of his students to teach the same lesson? That would not have been any more defendable in my opinion.

In high school, I took an elective and advanced honors level, college level course on political thought and theory.

We were objectively taught and studied the political theories of the ancient Greeks; Plato and Aristotle through the age of Enlightenment, Voltaire, and ended with Carl Marx and Marxism.

I knew my teacher, who I greatly respected, was from my discussions with her, was personally more liberal in her political views than the views I already had. For my final thesis paper, I chose the Communist Manifesto. I wrote my thesis in a very objective manner. While I had a point of view, I did not interject my personal beliefs into my paper, rather I used facts and the sort of reasoning my teacher objectively taught in this class to contrast Communism with other political theories and point out the flaws in Communism. I got an A for the course and an A for my thesis.

You believe that churches should be required to teach what the state dictates to them. Is this correct? Yes, or no, please.

I do not think we should teach religion in science class in public schools and I do not think that churches should have to teach anything they don't want to.

My point was that there are many competing religious beliefs and scientific facts that contradict Genesis. Based on your logic of academic freedom, churches logically should have to offer competing ideas too.

You objected, not on academic freedom grounds, but suggested that support from taxpayers was the determining factor.

I demonstrated that churches ARE supported by taxpayers and you agreed.

Therefore, logically, both churches AND schools should be forced to offer alternatives or NEITHER should. I prefer neither, but since you promote creationism in schools, you logically support evolution in churches

You missed an important point, Non-Sequitur: "absolute scientific proof" is not a phrase that scientists use, it's an imaginary standard that creationists apply to theories they don't like. (Mere evidence is good enough for theories they do like, and popularity for their non-scientific ideas.)

It's hard to imagine what "absolute scientific proof" would be -- it's almost an oxymoron -- but here are a few other theories that can't clear that hurdle:

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

If you have time on your hands you can play with the "my theory's been around a long time and many people still believe it" standard. Astrology anyone?

The germ theory of disease; there are strong correlations, but no real proof (and besides, some diseases aren't correlated with microbes, so there). The theory that stars are suns and the sun is a star; circumstantial evidence, no proof (and besides, some stars are different colors, so we can fuss with the definitions). The Round Earth Theory; LOTS of evidence but no absolute proof, it could be an illusion, we can refuse to understand the evidence, we can refuse to believe travellers' accounts. The theory that all human beings are mortal; massive inductive reasoning does not constitute proof.

Some churches do, but it not ordained to do so. The church
was founded for and by the Lord Jesus Christ. He said, “I will build My church” and It is written, “Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it.” And He promised to “present it without wrinkle and without spot.”
As to teaching in other nations, I would allow them to teach here, as they allowed us to teach in their countries.
If they will not allow us to teach, neither should we allow
(and some are even subidized by and established by our taxes)them to teach in our nation.

46
posted on 07/05/2008 7:48:13 AM PDT
by LetMarch
(If a man knows the right way to live, and does not live it, there is no greater coward--Anonymous))

One would think legislation which allows an environment that promotes critical thinking and objective discussion in the classroom would please everyone...

Now that teachers can't be disciplined for critical thinking and objective discussion there is nothing to prevent them from critically examining religious beliefs.

A young earth and the global flood should be among the easiest to apply critical thinking and objective discussion to.

There is no credible scientific evidence supporting either belief, and teachers will now be free to state this. And there's absolutely nothing the fundamentalists can do about it because of the silly law they just got passed.

If that were so, why has the theory of evolution changed (dare I say evolved) over the years as more fossil evidence has been gathered? Darwin provided examples of slow continuous evolution and that was mainstream evolutionary theory for years. However, the twentieth century theory of punctuated equilibrium better explains much, but not all, of later fossil finds.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.